1438 lines
76 KiB
Plaintext
1438 lines
76 KiB
Plaintext
Volume 7, Number 1 1 January 1990
|
||
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|
||
| _ |
|
||
| / \ |
|
||
| /|oo \ |
|
||
| - FidoNews - (_| /_) |
|
||
| _`@/_ \ _ |
|
||
| International | | \ \\ |
|
||
| FidoNet Association | (*) | \ )) |
|
||
| Newsletter ______ |__U__| / \// |
|
||
| / FIDO \ _//|| _\ / |
|
||
| (________) (_/(_|(____/ |
|
||
| (jm) |
|
||
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|
||
Editor in Chief: Vince Perriello
|
||
Editors Emeritii: Dale Lovell
|
||
Thom Henderson
|
||
Chief Procrastinator Emeritus: Tom Jennings
|
||
|
||
FidoNews is published weekly by the International FidoNet
|
||
Association as its official newsletter. You are encouraged to
|
||
submit articles for publication in FidoNews. Article submission
|
||
standards are contained in the file ARTSPEC.DOC, available from
|
||
node 1:1/1. 1:1/1 is a Continuous Mail system, available for
|
||
network mail 24 hours a day.
|
||
|
||
Copyright 1989 by the International FidoNet Association. All
|
||
rights reserved. Duplication and/or distribution permitted for
|
||
noncommercial purposes only. For use in other circumstances,
|
||
please contact IFNA at (314) 576-4067. IFNA may also be contacted
|
||
at PO Box 41143, St. Louis, MO 63141.
|
||
|
||
Fido and FidoNet are registered trademarks of Tom Jennings of
|
||
Fido Software, 164 Shipley Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94107 and
|
||
are used with permission.
|
||
|
||
We don't necessarily agree with the contents of every article
|
||
published here. Most of these materials are unsolicited. No
|
||
article submitted by a FidoNet SysOp will be rejected if it is
|
||
properly attributed and legally acceptable. We will publish
|
||
every responsible submission received.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Table of Contents
|
||
1. ARTICLES ................................................. 1
|
||
COMMENTS ON INTERNETWORK POLICY .......................... 1
|
||
Netmail Handling within Fidonet .......................... 5
|
||
Results from IFNA Vote ................................... 13
|
||
2. WANTED ................................................... 21
|
||
WANTED: Korean War Veterans .............................. 21
|
||
3. LATEST VERSIONS .......................................... 23
|
||
Latest Software Versions ................................. 23
|
||
4. NOTICES .................................................. 26
|
||
New Anesthesia Echo ...................................... 26
|
||
The Interrupt Stack ...................................... 26
|
||
FidoNews 7-01 Page 1 1 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
ARTICLES
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
|
||
|
||
COMMENTS ON INTERNETWORK POLICY
|
||
- or -
|
||
Observations From The Cheap Seats
|
||
|
||
Whether for better or for worse, the IFNA election is over.
|
||
The question of what the ultimate result will be from the outcome
|
||
is one that can only be left to be answered in the future. Other
|
||
things, it appears, have been in the works that perhaps we should
|
||
be concerned about, so on with the new!
|
||
|
||
First and foremost would have to be the appearance of the
|
||
Internetwork Gateway Policy draft as presented by Tim Pearson in
|
||
FidoNews 651. There has obviously been a lot of effort put into
|
||
this proposal by such FidoNet luminaries as Bill Bolton (ZC3),
|
||
Steve Bonine (Zone 1 Coordinator), Randy Bush (Zone 1 netmail
|
||
gateway to Zones 2, 3, 4 and 5), David Dodell (retired Interna-
|
||
tional Coordinator and Zone 1 Coordinator), Rick Moore (FidoNet
|
||
Technical Standards Committee Chairman), Tim Pearson (Region 14
|
||
Coordinator), Vince Perriello (FidoNews Editor and BinkleyTerm
|
||
Author), Tim Pozar (InterNetwork Coordinator), and Matt Whelan
|
||
(International Coordinator). That's quite an impressive collec-
|
||
tion of titles, by anyone's definition.
|
||
|
||
Given the prominence of the individuals on this committee,
|
||
and that it has obviously been working on this proposal for quite
|
||
a long time, I'm at once forced to wonder why the draft couldn't
|
||
have been released prior to or during the IFNA election so that
|
||
people could have had a little more of an idea of the possible
|
||
alternatives should IFNA fail to succeed. However, I'll come
|
||
back to that later. Right now I'm going to address some of the
|
||
things that about the proposal that are troubling me, ignoring
|
||
the trend toward the micromanagement of FidoNet that began with
|
||
Policy 4 and continues with the current proposal.
|
||
|
||
You see, I believe that FidoNet always has been, and should
|
||
always remain above all a hobbiest network. I believe that most
|
||
of us run our systems for our own enjoyment and pleasure, and
|
||
that we're not overly concerned with anything beyond communicat-
|
||
ing with others who do the same. The results from the recent
|
||
IFNA election would appear to indicate that I'm correct in at
|
||
least the second, if not the first of these beliefs.
|
||
|
||
I also believe that FidoNet technology is a wondrous thing,
|
||
in that it allows us to accomplish the act of communicating with
|
||
each other with pretty fair reliability in a relatively simple
|
||
manner. It even works, and works well, for messages that need to
|
||
travel between systems in one network and systems in another, as
|
||
long as both systems are compatible with the FidoNet mail proto-
|
||
col. From an operational standpoint, it's no more difficult than
|
||
operating in a single network. A lot of us have been doing it
|
||
for a couple of years now, and though there have been a few
|
||
FidoNews 7-01 Page 2 1 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
difficulties from time to time, most of these were a result of
|
||
personal problems, not technical issues. Even some of the tech-
|
||
nical difficulties that did occur could often be attributed to
|
||
simple operator error rather than problems with the technique
|
||
itself.
|
||
|
||
Certainly there must be special requirements and techniques
|
||
for passing mail between systems that use the FidoNet protocol
|
||
and those that do not, and certainly there must be agreements for
|
||
establishing connections to professional and/or commercial net
|
||
works that exist. However, the proposal as it stands would
|
||
appear to put more emphasis on protecting these other networks
|
||
from FidoNet than on protecting FidoNet and its hobbiest standing
|
||
from these professional and/or commercial giants. At least one
|
||
of the members of this committee has been espousing the necessity
|
||
of making FidoNet a professional network for years, and the
|
||
proposal shows more than a little of an influence in that direc-
|
||
tion.
|
||
|
||
But all of those special requirements and techniques simply
|
||
aren't necessary for communication between networks based on the
|
||
FidoNet protocol. However, now we have a proposal from a group
|
||
of individuals who apparently feel there is a need to increase
|
||
the complexity, the difficulty, and in most cases the cost for
|
||
anyone within FidoNet who wants to communicate with his neighbor
|
||
down the street who also runs a FidoNet compatible mail system
|
||
but happens to be a member of a different network, for whatever
|
||
reason. Interestingly enough, several of these same individuals
|
||
have been the most outspoken of the "my net or no net" camp - you
|
||
know, those folks who say "if you don't like it, you can leave",
|
||
knowing full well that they've got the biggest (and arguably
|
||
best) game on the block, and knowing that most people will just
|
||
resign themselves to take it on the cheek.
|
||
|
||
Note that I'm not saying that there aren't some good things
|
||
in the proposal. There most certainly are, for if nothing else
|
||
the document at least acknowledges the fact that there are net-
|
||
works based on the FidoNet protocol other than FidoNet itself in
|
||
existence and that they're not going to just dry up and go away -
|
||
an acknowledgment that previously had never been formalized.
|
||
There's also an indication that there may be some willingness to
|
||
establish agreements with these networks for communication be-
|
||
tween them and the resolution of problems that may occur. Howev-
|
||
er, even here the bully attitude reasserts itself in the "my way
|
||
or no way" philosophy and method of handling such problems. Other
|
||
FidoNet technology networks are, plain and simple, reduced to the
|
||
same status as private point networks by the proposal and its
|
||
mechanisms.
|
||
|
||
Now, all of this may not concern most of you in the least.
|
||
But it is, after all, remotely possible that someday you too may
|
||
want to join a different network for social reasons or special
|
||
benefits that it may offer. Should that happen, would you want
|
||
to be placed in the position of having to go through unnecessary
|
||
contortions simply to send a message to your FidoNet friend
|
||
across town? I wouldn't. However, getting back to my earlier
|
||
FidoNews 7-01 Page 3 1 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
question about why this proposal was released at this time.
|
||
Frankly, if I were doing it and had control of the situation, I
|
||
could think of absolutely no better time. Why?
|
||
|
||
Because there are those who would see this as an undeniable
|
||
attempt to increase the control of FidoNet by a few select indi-
|
||
viduals (as opposed to IFNA). Had it been released prior to or
|
||
during the IFNA election, it's entirely possible that the outcome
|
||
would have been much, much different. Also, there are a number
|
||
of proposals for a new FidoNet policy being worked on at the
|
||
present time, most of them based to one extent or another on
|
||
moving toward a truly democratic network. Should one of those be
|
||
passed and come into effect prior to this proposal, it certainly
|
||
might have a difficult time of passage without being reworked to
|
||
be a little more appropriate for a hobbiest network. Of course,
|
||
that's all conjecture on my part, but it seems a bit too conven-
|
||
ient to have happened just by coincidence. Because of all the
|
||
above, I want to make a couple of suggestions.
|
||
|
||
First, to all sysops of FidoNet or other FidoNet technology
|
||
networks. This proposal represents a serious threat to your
|
||
capability to continue communication with systems in other net-
|
||
works in the most efficient, cost-effective manner. Read it
|
||
closely. If implemented, it will in most cases take at least two
|
||
calls to send the message that now takes one, and additionally
|
||
will have to undergo some sort of processing on one or more
|
||
gateway systems, quite probably resulting in an increase in
|
||
costs, increase in time lag, and lower reliability as a result of
|
||
dependence on an increased number of other systems to be involved
|
||
in the transmission of your internetwork messages.
|
||
|
||
Second, to all sysops of FidoNet. You should demand to have
|
||
a personal voice in the adoption of ANY policy that has the
|
||
potential, now or later, of affecting your day to day operation
|
||
in any manner. You should demand that any such election be
|
||
conducted in a similar manner to the IFNA election, i.e., that
|
||
any policy can only be implemented by a YES vote from over 50% of
|
||
the nodes in the network, and that no "formulas" be applied for
|
||
adjusting the outcome of the vote. Anything less than this, and
|
||
you are leaving yourself open to the possibility of being con-
|
||
trolled by the desires of a few individuals who "know what's best
|
||
for you".
|
||
|
||
Third, to all sysops of all other FidoNet technology net-
|
||
works. If you're also still a member of FidoNet, then now is the
|
||
time to let yourself be heard, both by the drafters of this
|
||
proposal and by your fellow sysops. You should also let those
|
||
within the hierarchy of whatever other network you may be a
|
||
member of know that you feel it's time for all the other networks
|
||
to attempt to overcome their differences and speak to the FidoNet
|
||
with a single voice, through netmail, newsletter articles, con-
|
||
ferences between FidoNet coordinators and those of your own
|
||
network, regaining control of your network's conferences from
|
||
FidoNet if necessary, or whatever other actions may be available
|
||
to you.
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 7-01 Page 4 1 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
Last item from the cheap seats, to everyone. Whatever you
|
||
do or don't do, agree with or don't agree with, make sure to make
|
||
your opinions known. Along with any benefit comes responsibili-
|
||
ty, if nothing more than the responsibility to participate when
|
||
asked. Most of the time, it's just a matter of giving an honest
|
||
answer when you're asked what you think or how you feel about
|
||
something, or taking the time to cast your vote when there's an
|
||
election. If you do nothing else, at least make the attempt to
|
||
stand up and be counted when it's time!
|
||
|
||
John Roberts
|
||
FidoNet 1:385/49
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
FidoNews 7-01 Page 5 1 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
Jack Decker
|
||
1:154/9, 11:154/8
|
||
|
||
NETMAIL HANDLING WITHIN FIDONET
|
||
|
||
The purpose of this article is to stimulate you to think for a
|
||
moment about netmail (also known as "Matrix Mail" if you run an
|
||
Opus system). I'd like to make some statements about netmail,
|
||
and ask how many of the following you'd agree with:
|
||
|
||
1) In the early days of Fidonet, netmail was what held us
|
||
together. Without it, we'd have been just a loose collection
|
||
of BBS's, if that.
|
||
|
||
2) In the past two or three years, most new sysops have joined
|
||
Fidonet primarily to gain access to echomail, and many sysops
|
||
don't even use netmail, nor offer it to their users.
|
||
|
||
3) From the user's perspective, sending or replying to a
|
||
message in echomail is thought of as being "free", while
|
||
sending netmail costs money, if the BBS you're using even
|
||
allows you to do so.
|
||
|
||
4) From the sysop's point of view, outgoing echomail costs
|
||
very little compared to outgoing netmail (for which a separate
|
||
call may have to be made to deliver each single netmail
|
||
message). The exception to this is in the (relatively few)
|
||
nets that have OGATEs.
|
||
|
||
5) If a sysop has a really important netmail message to send,
|
||
he'll usually send it directly to the destination system (using
|
||
"crash mail") rather than take the risk that it will be lost or
|
||
grunged in transit through other systems.
|
||
|
||
6) Calling an unknown node to deliver netmail can be risky.
|
||
While all nodes in Fidonet are supposed to be able to talk to
|
||
each other, it turns out that certain modems and/or mailers
|
||
will refuse to communicate more often than we'd like.
|
||
|
||
7) If you wish to send netmail within your own zone, and you
|
||
do not have an OGATE in your net, you must send it to the
|
||
destination node or to his net host on your own nickel (and
|
||
hope that your system and the one at the other end will
|
||
communicate).
|
||
|
||
8) Most sysops have no idea how to go about sending a netmail
|
||
message to someone in a different Fidonet-compatible network,
|
||
let alone to a non-Fidonet network such as Usenet, Internet,
|
||
etc.
|
||
|
||
9) If someone told a Fidonet sysop that he had an account on
|
||
Usenet, chances are that the Fidonet sysop would not be able to
|
||
tell that person how to address mail to the sysop at his
|
||
Fidonet address. In fact, most Fidonet sysops would never
|
||
expect to receive mail from another network in that manner.
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 7-01 Page 6 1 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
10) Many messages that are currently placed in echomail could
|
||
go by netmail, which would cut down on much of the extraneous
|
||
and off-topic discussion that today permeates the echo
|
||
conferences.
|
||
|
||
11) It is much easier and less expensive to send netmail in
|
||
other networks (such as Usenet) because mail is routed through
|
||
other systems.
|
||
|
||
That's the end of the "pop quiz." How many of the above
|
||
statements did you agree with? If it was five or more, then
|
||
you probably realize that we have a bit of a problem with
|
||
netmail right now, in both Fidonet and most of the
|
||
"alternative" networks that use Fidonet technology.
|
||
|
||
How would you like to be able to handle outbound netmail in
|
||
this way: When you post a netmail message, if your system
|
||
"knows" the destination system (for example, it's another
|
||
system in your local calling area, or one with which you
|
||
regularly exchange netmail or echomail), your system would send
|
||
the message direct, as it does now. Or, if the message was
|
||
really important and had to get to the destination quickly,
|
||
your system would crashmail it to the destination, just as it
|
||
does now.
|
||
|
||
But, for all other netmail... the stuff that goes to systems
|
||
you don't "know" but which is not time-sensitive... you'd
|
||
simply dump it on one node in your net and he'd see that it got
|
||
delivered! That would be simple and convenient, right?
|
||
|
||
Ah, but what does that node do with it? Well, suppose he
|
||
collects all the long distance netmail from your net, and makes
|
||
ONE long distance call each night and dumps it on a node at the
|
||
regional level? Still pretty simple, right?
|
||
|
||
And what does the regional level node do? Well, if it's mail
|
||
for a net in his region, he holds it for pickup by the node
|
||
that calls in from that net (the netmail hub for that net, in
|
||
other words). Otherwise, he bundles it up and sends it to a
|
||
zone level node, which holds it for pickup by the proper
|
||
regional level node.
|
||
|
||
Now, this is all pretty straightforward up to the regional
|
||
level. Either you "know" the destination net of any given
|
||
message and send it directly to that net, or you don't, in
|
||
which case the message it sent "upstream." But above the
|
||
regional level, there has to be some way to know which regional
|
||
hub gets any particular netmail message. It would be nice to
|
||
assume that we'd always have one regional netmail hub for each
|
||
Fidonet region, but that may not always be the case. In
|
||
reality, we might have one hub that serves two adjacent
|
||
regions. Or, there may be some technical or economic reason
|
||
why a particular net may need to connect with a mail hub in a
|
||
different region. Since we're designing this from the ground
|
||
up anyway, we might as well build in some flexibility to handle
|
||
these types of situations.
|
||
FidoNews 7-01 Page 7 1 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
So let's suppose we have a network-wide "topology map." This
|
||
would have to be maintained, but not anywhere near as
|
||
frequently as the nodelist. It could probably be distributed
|
||
as an SDS file. Its greatest benefit would be to those at the
|
||
regional level and above, so minor changes could probably be
|
||
made manually (and immediately) by sending out netmail messages
|
||
to the parties who really need the information.
|
||
|
||
The map would make the assumption that each mail hub knows how
|
||
to get to the levels above and below it (that is, the full
|
||
net/node address of those nodes above and below it), so the map
|
||
itself would really only have to list net, region, or zone
|
||
numbers. That way, when the functions of a particular hub are
|
||
transferred to a different node, the map doesn't necessarily
|
||
have to be redrawn.
|
||
|
||
As an example, the following might be the basic outline for a
|
||
map for a mythical zone 6 that has three regions (67, 68, and
|
||
69) which each serve three nets:
|
||
|
||
NET REGION ZONE
|
||
230 67 6
|
||
311
|
||
395
|
||
320 68
|
||
373
|
||
377
|
||
121 69
|
||
162
|
||
331
|
||
|
||
(This may seem like it reads backwards, but it creates a
|
||
smaller file than if written the other way around, and is
|
||
probably easier to parse).
|
||
|
||
So, if you want to send a message to zone 5, net 373 and it
|
||
arrives at the zone-level node, it can check the "map" and
|
||
determine that it can send the message to the region 68 hub.
|
||
|
||
A couple more technical points about the map: First, there
|
||
would be separate maps for each zone, not a combined map. It's
|
||
really nobody's concern how mail is routed in a different zone
|
||
from their own. Also, it would be permissible to have listings
|
||
ABOVE the first zone listing, particularly during the time
|
||
frame when this scheme is first being implemented. This would
|
||
indicate regions that have intra-regional routing but that do
|
||
not tie into any zone-wide routing scheme (yet). Net hubs
|
||
would know that in such cases they could not use the regional
|
||
hub to send mail outside of their own regions. Actually, a
|
||
fourth field could be used in such a case, to indicate those
|
||
other regions that a particular region DOES connect with (see
|
||
the technical appendix at the end of this article).
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 7-01 Page 8 1 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
Would you believe that we already have the beginnings of such a
|
||
netmail routing scheme in Fidonet, but few know about it? For
|
||
example, in at least one region that I know of, the Regional
|
||
Echomail Coordinator handles inter-net netmail within his
|
||
region, and in a different region, the Regional Coordinator
|
||
performs this service. Under policy, neither of these folks is
|
||
REQUIRED to perform this service, they just do it because they
|
||
are nice folks.
|
||
|
||
And in Fidonet Zone 2, it appears that netmail routing is being
|
||
accomplished routinely. A message from Tomas Gradin to me in
|
||
the NET_DEV conference (in response to an earlier message of
|
||
mine) stated:
|
||
|
||
JD> NODE ==> NC ==> RC ==> ZC ==>
|
||
[OTHER ZONE ZC ==>] RC ==> NC ==> NODE
|
||
|
||
I agree. We have done it exactly this way in Region
|
||
20 (consisting of the seven nets in Sweden) for
|
||
several years by now, and it works *excellently*! We
|
||
do it like this:
|
||
|
||
node -> [hub ->] NC -> RC -> NC -> [hub ->] node
|
||
|
||
Mail to other regions is sent by the RC to the RC of
|
||
the destination node, or to the proper zonegate.
|
||
|
||
The quoted line of yours shows exactly how I would
|
||
like FidoNet netmail to work in all regions/zones.
|
||
It's the best way, doubtlessly.
|
||
|
||
I've been around Fidonet long enough to know that if we try to
|
||
mandate any sort of netmail routing scheme upon the network, it
|
||
will never happen. For example, if we tried to pass a Policy
|
||
that stated that REC's or RC's HAD to handle netmail within
|
||
their region, those who don't want to do it will scream bloody
|
||
murder and try to make life miserable for everyone else, and
|
||
will do their darndest to make sure that the idea never comes
|
||
to fruitation. So, let's avoid that problem. What I propose
|
||
is that we create a totally new, totally voluntary position...
|
||
The zone/region/net NETMAIL Coordinator. This doesn't even
|
||
have to be an "officially recognized" position, though it would
|
||
be nice if it was. But, keep in mind that distribution systems
|
||
like the SDS and SDN got started without a whole lot of
|
||
"official" blessing, yet they are widely recognized within the
|
||
net now.
|
||
|
||
The one thing that would differentiate the Netmail Coordinator
|
||
(*NC) position from the others is that in this case we would
|
||
allow (and even encourage) folks to wear "two hats." It makes
|
||
a LOT of sense for an existing *EC or *C to also be the *NC for
|
||
his net, region, or zone. Only in the case where neither the
|
||
*EC nor *C wanted the job would we start asking for volunteers.
|
||
The reason, of course, is that it makes a lot of sense to
|
||
"piggyback" netmail on existing structures where possible,
|
||
rather than creating totally new structures where these are not
|
||
FidoNews 7-01 Page 9 1 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
required. For example, if the Net Echomail Coordinator makes
|
||
outgoing calls to virtually everyone in his net every day, he
|
||
might not feel that it's such an imposition to deliver the
|
||
occasional piece of netmail at the same time, during the same
|
||
call (then again, he might, which is why we make it
|
||
voluntary!).
|
||
|
||
In order to make this work, those who volunteer to be Netmail
|
||
Coordinators would be wise to agree to follow a few common
|
||
sense rules:
|
||
|
||
1) Delivery of mail takes precedence over political
|
||
considerations. In other words, you don't withhold delivery of
|
||
someone's mail in order to make a political statement.
|
||
|
||
2) Every reasonable effort should be made to deliver netmail.
|
||
It's not reasonable to expect you to make a call to Timbuktu to
|
||
deliver mail on your nickel, but you should be willing to "go
|
||
the extra mile" to see that mail passing through your system
|
||
gets delivered.
|
||
|
||
3) If you're at the region level or above, no checking for the
|
||
existence of a node is allowed before mail delivery is
|
||
attempted. If the NET number is valid, you at least should
|
||
deliver it as far as the net hub for that net. The net hub
|
||
just might know what to do with it, even if you don't! The
|
||
destination node may be a new node that's not yet in the
|
||
nodelist, or a private node in that net that's not listed in
|
||
the nodelist, or even a node that's existed for years but that
|
||
through some accident or screwup by man or machine, got omitted
|
||
from this week's nodelist.
|
||
|
||
4) Anyone who has a "chip on their shoulder" in regard to the
|
||
alternative networks will probably not make a good Netmail
|
||
Coordinator, and probably should not apply for the position.
|
||
Eventually "Domain Gating" may be worked into this scheme
|
||
(indeed, "Domain Gating" really only becomes viable when a
|
||
netmail routing scheme such as this one exists on both sides of
|
||
the Domain gate!) so if you just can't stomach the idea of
|
||
handling mail that originates in networks other than your own,
|
||
you probably ought to let a more open-minded individual take
|
||
the position.
|
||
|
||
5) You also probably shouldn't get into this if you think
|
||
you're going to charge other people money for providing this
|
||
service. One of the major problems we've had in Fidonet is
|
||
people who take a position with the idea that somehow it's
|
||
going to financially enrich them, and when that doesn't happen,
|
||
they start pushing for "chargeback" schemes and the like (which
|
||
generally go over like lead balloons, and cause all sorts of
|
||
problems, flames, and policy complaints).
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 7-01 Page 10 1 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
6) Geographic boundaries are not idols, and are not "cast in
|
||
concrete." If it makes more sense (from a cost standpoint, or
|
||
for some technical reason such as modems or mailers that refuse
|
||
to communicate with each other at a reasonable speed), a net
|
||
distribution point may be allowed to connect into the netmail
|
||
routing scheme at some point outside of their own region.
|
||
That's why we have the topology map! Even though I use the
|
||
word "region" in this proposal, it's not my intent to say that
|
||
netmail routing regions must *exactly* follow Fidonet regional
|
||
boundaries. It's also not my intent to say that mail going
|
||
between political subdivisions MUST flow through the next
|
||
higher level. If the Netmail Coordinators of two different
|
||
nets or regions wish to send direct to each other, that should
|
||
be encouraged since it will take some of the load off of the
|
||
system at the next higher level!
|
||
|
||
Those of you who think that this idea stinks (for whatever
|
||
reason) probably wonder why anyone would volunteer their time
|
||
and, to some extent, their money to provide this service. My
|
||
answer to that is that I don't know WHY folks do things for
|
||
others, but many do. Consider again the SDS and SDN nodes,
|
||
which in many areas spend no small amount of money to bring the
|
||
"latest and greatest" software into their nets, in most cases
|
||
without recompense. Also consider that many nets have echomail
|
||
hubs that absorb the expenses incurred in bring echoes into the
|
||
net. Still other nets presently have OGATEs that send outbound
|
||
netmail at their own expense. Why do any of these folks do
|
||
what they do? For that matter, why do sysops set up free
|
||
BBS's? I don't know, but I'll bet there's more folks out there
|
||
who would be happy to have a chance to make a meaningful
|
||
contribution to this hobby that we call Fidonet.
|
||
|
||
Technical Addendum:
|
||
==================
|
||
|
||
My actual proposal for the map differs slightly in
|
||
implementation from the very general outline mentioned above.
|
||
The actual format would be:
|
||
|
||
;Entry_type
|
||
[for Zone_Map entries:]
|
||
net[,region[,zone][,other connected regions]]
|
||
|
||
For example:
|
||
|
||
;Zone_Map
|
||
289,24,,25 26 27
|
||
256
|
||
203
|
||
315,25,,24 26 27
|
||
362
|
||
101,15,6
|
||
124
|
||
161,11
|
||
129
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 7-01 Page 11 1 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
Note that in the above example, no zone is specified until the
|
||
seventh line. Nodes list above that line are not tied into the
|
||
zone-wide netmail routing scheme, but do participate in
|
||
multi-regional routing between regions 24-27. Eventually the
|
||
fourth field may become unused, but in the beginning it will
|
||
allow netmail routing to begin in portions of the zone prior to
|
||
implementation of a full zone-wide delivery system. In other
|
||
words, the fourth field would be considered temporary, and
|
||
would probably be abolished after zone-wide netmail routing
|
||
becomes a reality.
|
||
|
||
The ";Zone_Map" keyword is REQUIRED and allows the list to be
|
||
expanded with other useful information, with each type of
|
||
information having its own specific format. For example, if it
|
||
were desired to place the actual network addresses of the
|
||
regional hubs in the map (again, as a temporary measure until
|
||
full zone-wide routing is achieved), it could be done in this
|
||
way:
|
||
|
||
;Region_Hubs 24,24/0
|
||
25,25/99
|
||
26,265/111
|
||
|
||
...and, it would even be possible to include Domain Gating
|
||
information to make it easy for folks to find domain gates.
|
||
The syntax might be:
|
||
|
||
domain name,domain gate address[,net/regions served]
|
||
|
||
For example:
|
||
|
||
;Domain_Gates
|
||
Hairnet,304/252,r24 25 n124
|
||
Usenet,412/287
|
||
|
||
In the first example, the "Hairnet" gate would be the one
|
||
actually accessed by the region 24, region 25, and net 124 hubs
|
||
for transmission of inter-net mail. In other words, this field
|
||
would be for informational purposes ("this is the domain gate
|
||
we are currently using") rather than as an imperative ("if you
|
||
are in region 24 you MUST use this gate only!").
|
||
|
||
Having this information available from one centralized location
|
||
within a zone would make it much easier for mail hubs to
|
||
construct meaningful routing control files. None of the above
|
||
is "cast in stone" and I am certainly open to suggestions on
|
||
how it might be improved. One thing to keep in mind is that
|
||
the more information that is included with the map, the more
|
||
useful it becomes, BUT it will have to be updated more
|
||
frequently.
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 7-01 Page 12 1 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
One other note... I have deliberately avoided mentioning the
|
||
ZoneGate in this document because, although I feel it would be
|
||
better if the ZoneGate were at the "top of the pyramid" in any
|
||
netmail routing scheme, the current ZoneGate operators may not
|
||
wish to participate. Therefore, for the time being, if a piece
|
||
of mail for another zone turns up on a Netmail Coordinator's
|
||
system, it should be handled just like any other piece of mail
|
||
destined for the ZoneGate's net (for example, in zone 1, it
|
||
would be handled just like any other piece of mail going to net
|
||
105). Also, the current zone 1 ZoneGate operator has indicated
|
||
that he will destroy rather than deliver mail that originates
|
||
in a network outside of Fidonet; therefore, if full
|
||
inter-domain routing ever becomes a reality, it may be
|
||
appropriate at that time for the Netmail Coordinators to find
|
||
an alternate routing for mail which originates in other domains
|
||
(but which is destined for a Fidonet node in another zone).
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
FidoNews 7-01 Page 13 1 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
Steve Bonine 1:115/777
|
||
Chair of IFNA Elections and Nominations Committee
|
||
|
||
At this Summer's FidoCon, the IFNA Board of Directors passed a
|
||
resolution affectionately known as YPOP (Yellow Piece of Paper)
|
||
which decreed that a vote would be taken to determine the future of
|
||
IFNA. The rules for this vote were published in FidoNews 644. The
|
||
polls were open during the month of November, and the vote totals
|
||
were tabulated and reported up the FidoNet coordinator structure
|
||
during the month of December. This article reports those results.
|
||
|
||
The resolution passed by the Board stated that the outcome of the
|
||
vote was to be based upon the total of ELIGIBLE voters, not on the
|
||
number of actual votes received. It thus was as important to
|
||
develop a count of eligible voters as to record the votes received.
|
||
Network Coordinators who conducted the vote were requested to
|
||
forward three numbers: YES votes, NO votes, and number of eligible
|
||
voters.
|
||
|
||
A mechanism was developed to adjust the total of eligible voters to
|
||
compensate for nets which did not report any results or for which
|
||
no number-eligible was reported. This mechanism, described in the
|
||
published rules, involves calculating a ratio of the number of
|
||
eligible voters to the number of nodelist entries and then applying
|
||
that ratio to nets which did not report.
|
||
|
||
In summary, the numeric results are as follows:
|
||
|
||
YES votes received: 1417
|
||
NO votes received: 480
|
||
Eligible voters reported: 3741
|
||
Nodelist entries represented by these 3741 voters: 4373
|
||
Nodelist entries represented by nets not reporting: 1484
|
||
Calculated eligible voters in nets not reporting: 1269
|
||
Total eligible voters: 5010
|
||
|
||
Percentage of eligible voters voting YES: 28%
|
||
|
||
As Chair of the IFNA Nominations and Elections Committee, the Board
|
||
of Directors should consider this my formal report that the
|
||
required majority of eligible voters was NOT received in this
|
||
election.
|
||
|
||
Now that I have presented the numbers, I want to editorialize just
|
||
a bit.
|
||
|
||
I want to thank everyone who helped conduct this election. The
|
||
cooperation from the entire FidoNet coordinator structure was
|
||
excellent and quite gratifying. After all, it wasn't the coordina-
|
||
tors who asked for this, and it is no small amount of work to hold
|
||
this type of election, especially in a large net. Considering the
|
||
number of people involved and our experience level at doing this,
|
||
the number of problems encountered was vanishingly small.
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 7-01 Page 14 1 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
Which brings me to a related topic. There are almost 2,000 votes
|
||
tallied in this election. I am certain that, somewhere, there must
|
||
be a typo or a net's vote which somehow was mis-recorded. Let's
|
||
not nitpick on this. A few votes one way or the other really isn't
|
||
going to change anything. A few HUNDRED votes wouldn't change the
|
||
outcome. In fact, it would take more than 1,000 additional YES
|
||
votes to change the outcome. Everyone involved has done their best
|
||
to insure accuracy, and flames about misrecorded votes just aren't
|
||
called for.
|
||
|
||
In conclusion I present the vote tally by net. This list is based
|
||
upon NODELIST.300, which was the nodelist-of-record for the
|
||
election. It does not purport to reflect current reality in terms
|
||
of NC names, etc. The line length was chopped at 65 characters to
|
||
allow it to appear in FidoNews with one line per net, which
|
||
mutilated some NC's names; for that I apologize. The three numbers
|
||
shown are YES votes, NO votes, and number-eligible. In those cases
|
||
where the number-eligible is blank (including those indicated as
|
||
"no report"), the eligible count was adjusted using the ratio
|
||
technique described above.
|
||
|
||
YES NO Elig
|
||
|
||
12 4 26 Net 100,St Louis Area,St Louis MO,J Harre
|
||
16 3 33 Net 101,Boston Metro,Swampscott MA,HAL DuPrie
|
||
10 1 61 Net 102,SoCalNet,Los Angeles CA,Richard Martz
|
||
14 3 28 Net 103,Orange Co CA,Anaheim CA,Jim Bacon
|
||
8 13 71 Net 104,Denver Area Net,Denver CO,Rod Lamping
|
||
6 28 62 Net 105,VanPort Net,S Wash & N Ore,The Curmudgeon
|
||
4 6 74 Net 106,Houston Area,Houston TX,Merrilyn Vaughan
|
||
84 10 100 Net 107,NY/NJ MetroNet,East Brunswick NJ,Fabian G
|
||
5 1 6 Net 108,CincyNet,Cincinnati OH,Jesse Armontrout
|
||
51 2 89 Net 109,Spooks R Us Net,DC MD NoVA Metro,Bill And
|
||
1 7 8 Net 110,DAYTON Area,Dayton OH,Decker Doggett
|
||
0 0 Net 112,NE Florida Coast,Jacksonville FL,Dana San
|
||
17 9 48 Net 114,Phoenix Area,Phoenix AZ,John Valentyn
|
||
20 8 42 Net 115,ChicagoLand,Chicago IL,Tom Etheridge
|
||
0 0 Net 116,Greater Tenn Area,Nashville TN,Mike Black
|
||
no report Net 117,Brazos County Area,College Station TX,Pau
|
||
11 1 13 Net 119,ChicoNet,Chico CA,Bob Campbell
|
||
12 2 Net 120,Detroit MetroNet,Ferndale MI,Mike Bader
|
||
2 0 4 Net 121,Madison Area,Madison WI,John Galvin
|
||
4 1 Net 123,Mid-South Net,Memphis TN,Bill Paul
|
||
no report Net 124,Dallas Metroplex,Dallas TX,Jon Sabol
|
||
12 1 31 Net 125,SF Bay Net,San Francisco CA,Mike Moore
|
||
14 1 23 Net 128,Southern Colorado,Colorado Springs CO,Woo
|
||
32 1 34 Net 129,Pitt-Net,Pittsburgh PA,Paul Kelly
|
||
5 1 42 Net 130,FTW Gateway,Fort Worth TX,George Braswell
|
||
10 9 36 Net 132,New England-North,Nashua NH,Kath Kirby
|
||
8 0 Net 133,ATLNET,Atlanta GA,Steve Antonoff
|
||
15 13 29 Net 134,Southern Alberta,Calgary Alta,Norbert Lan
|
||
FidoNews 7-01 Page 15 1 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
18 1 38 Net 135,SFLorida Net,Miami FL,Christopher Baker
|
||
1 1 4 Net 136,Del Rio,Del Rio TX,James Johnston
|
||
0 0 Net 137,Fla Suncoast Net,Sarasota FL,George Emigh
|
||
0 14 15 Net 138,South Puget Sound,Washington,Steven Barne
|
||
7 0 8 Net 139,Eastern WI & U.P. MI,Neenah WI,Bruce Casn
|
||
1 8 25 Net 140,Sask Net,Saskatchewan Canada,Ken Read
|
||
26 21 77 Net 141,ConnCentral,New Haven CT,Emmitt Dove
|
||
7 1 10 Net 142,Hartford Area,Farmington CT,Maynard Marqu
|
||
10 1 21 Net 143,Silicon Valley,Sunnyvale CA,Jim Cannell
|
||
17 3 43 Net 147,OKC MetroNet,Oklahoma City,Kris Veitch
|
||
2 8 10 Net 150,First State,Wilmington DE,Dave Hart
|
||
0 0 Net 151,NC Net,Greensboro NC,Michael Hill
|
||
9 0 34 Net 152,The Oregon Network,Eugene OR,Paul Ortman
|
||
3 1 60 Net 153,Pacific Rim,BC MAN YUK NWT,Len Boscoe
|
||
13 0 20 Net 154,Wisconsin S.E.(lata),Milwaukee WI,Ted Pol
|
||
6 2 18 Net 157,Northeast OH,Cleveland OH,Bob Abbott
|
||
0 8 21 Net 159,Mid Michigan Net,Lansing MI,Bob Peel
|
||
6 0 13 Net 160,South TX Gulf Coast,Corpus Christi TX,Bob
|
||
11 0 34 Net 161,SF EAST BAY\VALLEY,Benicia CA,Derek Koopo
|
||
2 4 51 Net 163,Ottawa Net,Ottawa ON,Bruce Miller
|
||
1 2 40 Net 167,QUEBEC WEST,Brossard Que,Renald Loignon
|
||
11 18 43 Net 170,Tulsa Area,Tulsa OK,Bruce Bodger
|
||
3 0 19 Net 200,South Net,Malmoe Sweden,Mats Knuts
|
||
no report Net 201,Lafayette Net,West Lafayette IN,Don Ault
|
||
5 0 35 Net 201,Mid Sweden Net,Sweden,Thomas Bergstam
|
||
22 2 33 Net 202,San Diego Co CA,San Diego CA,Jim Dailey
|
||
4 0 22 Net 202,TCL-NET,Tungelsta Sweden,Hakan Andersson
|
||
30 11 41 Net 203,SacraMetro Valley Net,Sacramento Ca,Ralph
|
||
1 0 19 Net 203,West Swedish Net,Gothenburg Sweden,Anders
|
||
1 0 8 Net 204,Central Net,Orebro Sweden,Thomas Stjernst
|
||
2 3 16 Net 204,SF Peninsula Net,San Mateo CA,Les Kooyman
|
||
13 1 17 Net 205,Fresno/Central Valley,Clovis CA,Ken Wecte
|
||
no report Net 205,Norrland Net,Sundsvall Sweden,Roberth Lin
|
||
4 1 21 Net 206,Ventura County Net,Thousand Oaks CA,Steve
|
||
no report Net 207,Inland County Net,Colton CA,Rod Bowman
|
||
2 0 13 Net 208,Stockton/Modesto Net,Modesto CA,Stephen E
|
||
4 0 4 Net 209,Vega$Net,Las Vegas NV,Jeff Marsh
|
||
0 0 12 Net 221,SouWest O Net,London ON,Erik Sea
|
||
0 0 7 Net 222,The Soo Net,Sault Ste. Marie ON,Mario D'U
|
||
2 0 5 Net 225,Near North Net,North Bay ON,Jesse David H
|
||
24 1 30 Net 226,Buckeye Net,Columbus OH,David Pointer
|
||
3 0 5 Net 227,Michiana Net,South Bend IN,Bob Heide
|
||
5 2 22 Net 228,West Michigan Net,Grand Rapids MI,Kevin O
|
||
7 1 24 Net 229,Durham Net,Ajax ONT,Rick Bates
|
||
11 0 13 Net 230,DANE TECH,Denmark,Mik Tuver
|
||
5 10 22 Net 231,Central IN Fido Net,Indpls IN,Brian Murre
|
||
3 0 25 Net 231,DaneNet,Denmark,Johnny Odgaard
|
||
2 2 9 Net 232,Central IL,Peoria IL,Lee Busby
|
||
14 1 18 Net 233,Chambana Net,Urbana IL,Wayne Hamilton
|
||
13 1 14 Net 234,Maumee Valley Net,Toledo OH,Jim Dunmyer
|
||
no report Net 234,Mosquito Network Ass.,Denmark,Keld Hansen
|
||
no report Net 236,NE Indiana Net,Fort Wayne IN,Ron Kuhn
|
||
no report Net 237,State Line <HST>,Niles OH,Orren Zook
|
||
FidoNews 7-01 Page 16 1 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
3 0 3 Net 238,Central WI,Schofield WI,William Huther
|
||
4 0 6 Net 240,QUEBEC EAST,QuebecCity Que,Doug Kitson
|
||
0 5 5 Net 241,European HST NET,West Germany FRG,Mario R
|
||
4 2 11 Net 242,AltiPlex Net,FRG,Leo Moll
|
||
no report Net 243,Big Science Net,West Germany FRG,Ruediger
|
||
8 0 17 Net 244,RHEIN-AREA-NET,West Germany FRG,Helmut Sa
|
||
1 4 8 Net 245,MUG-Net,West Germany FRG,Klaus Schaefer
|
||
4 0 10 Net 246,Bavarian Net,West-Germany FRG,Tommy Roede
|
||
0 0 9 Net 247,Niagara Net,St. Catharines ON,Hugh Mitche
|
||
1 6 13 Net 247,SchaWot Net Suedhessen,West Germany FRG,S
|
||
no report Net 248,Ara Net Wiesbaden,West Gemany FRG,Hans Ko
|
||
0 0 84 Net 250,Southern Ontario Net,ON,Bruce Smith
|
||
2 0 3 Net 251,Southern Net,South Coast UK,Jon Dunster
|
||
22 0 27 Net 252,South Central,Reading UK,David Rance
|
||
22 1 51 Net 253,Central Net,Droitwich UK,Pete Franchi
|
||
27 0 46 Net 254,London Net,London UK,Grant Burch
|
||
7 0 12 Net 255,SouthWest Net ,Exeter UK,John Burden
|
||
1 0 10 Net 256,Brit Net North,Tyneside UK,John Rawson
|
||
no report Net 257,The Home Counties Net,UK,Grant Burch
|
||
1 1 16 Net 258,Eastern Net [HST],Sandy UK,Alan Walker
|
||
4 0 6 Net 259,ScotNet,Barrhead UK,Donald Whannell
|
||
24 2 47 Net 260,EmpireStateNet,Syracuse NY,Mark Howard
|
||
32 2 49 Net 261,Chesapeake MetroNet,Baltimore Area,Bob Ru
|
||
3 0 6 Net 262,West Virginia Net,So Charleston WV,Mike H
|
||
4 1 21 Net 264,Mid Virginia Net,Richmond VA,Cabell Clark
|
||
0 1 11 Net 265,SOUTHERN NORTHERN VA NET,Woodbridge Va,Ri
|
||
1 11 22 Net 266,51st State,Burlington NJ,Bob Germer
|
||
7 0 7 Net 267,Adirondack Net,Glens Falls NY,Ross Callow
|
||
1 2 5 Net 268,Pocono Net,Hainesville NJ,Ed Crissey
|
||
2 4 15 Net 269,Garden State North,Caldwell NJ,Glen Johns
|
||
7 5 12 Net 270,Central PA Net,Middletown PA,Gary Rux
|
||
3 4 15 Net 271,Tidewater Va Net,Norfolk VA,Tom Cadorette
|
||
13 0 16 Net 272,South East NY Net,Poughkeepsie NY,Ray Hyd
|
||
5 10 35 Net 273,Philadelphia Metro,Bensalem PA,Thomas Lyn
|
||
no report Net 280,DFF Host Holland Capital,Amsterdam Hollan
|
||
30 2 32 Net 280,KC Area Net,Kansas City MO,Fred Armantrou
|
||
5 0 25 Net 281,DFF Holland North-West,Voorschoten Hollan
|
||
no report Net 282,DFF Holland-North/East,Heerenveen Holland
|
||
11 2 22 Net 282,Twin Cities Metronet,Mpls/St. Paul MN,Ste
|
||
no report Net 283,DFF Host Holland-Mid/East,Ommen Holland,P
|
||
3 0 9 Net 283,IowaNetEast,Iowa City IA,Jim Stepp
|
||
3 0 15 Net 284,DFF Host Holland South-East,Casteren Holl
|
||
2 1 3 Net 284,Springfield Area Net,Springfield MO,Phil
|
||
3 0 15 Net 285,DFF Host Holland South-West,Roosendaal Ho
|
||
3 2 8 Net 285,Tri City Network,Omaha NE,Phil Root
|
||
3 0 33 Net 286,Dutch Independent Network,Monster Holland
|
||
2 1 3 Net 286,Ozark Net,Joplin MO,Tim Pearson
|
||
1 0 1 Net 287,Cape Girardeau,Cape Girardeau MO,Bob Mari
|
||
1 0 6 Net 288,ILL EAST OF MISS,Granite City IL,Mark Veh
|
||
3 0 5 Net 289,Mid Missouri Net,Mexico MO,Linda Glover
|
||
4 0 5 Net 290,CIA Central Iowa Net,Des Moines IA,Dan Bu
|
||
no report Net 290,IBN 290,Brussels Belgium,Frank Verstraete
|
||
FidoNews 7-01 Page 17 1 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
0 2 2 Net 291,Istari-Belgium,Mechelen-Belgium,Julien Va
|
||
0 0 2 Net 291,Wichita MetNet,Wichita Kansas,Mike Holcom
|
||
5 1 19 Net 295,Belgian Independant Nodes,Mortsel Belgium
|
||
3 3 12 Net 300,Pueblo NET,Tucson AZ,Don Appleton
|
||
no report Net 300,SwissNet,Titterten,Ernesto Hagmann
|
||
6 1 8 Net 301,High Mesa Net,Albuquerque NM,Jake Hargrov
|
||
no report Net 302,CACHE VALLEY NET,Smithfield UT,Dave Bell
|
||
no report Net 302,IVSS-Net [HST],Guntershausen,Nik Bombelli
|
||
4 0 4 Net 303,COWBOY NET,Wyoming,Casper WY
|
||
3 0 5 Net 304,Northern Arizona,Flagstaff Az,Linda Murph
|
||
3 0 5 Net 305,Whole Enchilada Net,Las Cruces NM,Scott H
|
||
no report Net 306,Northern CO,Ft. Collins CO,Rob Diehl
|
||
no report Net 307,SE COLO NET,Pueblo CO,Bryan Hall
|
||
8 0 8 Net 308,5-N-UP NET,Alamogordo NM,Greg Ament
|
||
3 0 4 Net 309,SOUTHERN AZ NET,Sierra Vista AZ,Robin Moo
|
||
no report Net 310,CHEYENNE ONLINE,Wyoming,Cheyenne WY
|
||
6 4 10 Net 310,ViennaNet,Vienna Austria,Werner Illsinger
|
||
5 0 5 Net 313,Lower Austria Net,Klosterneuburg Austria,
|
||
2 0 2 Net 316,StyriaNet,Graz Austria,Andreas Polz
|
||
2 4 21 Net 320,Marlboro Exchange,Marlboro CT,Joe Turner
|
||
no report Net 320,Paris Net,Paris,Mic Ralle
|
||
4 8 17 Net 321,MassNet West,Amherst MA,Mort Sternheim
|
||
no report Net 321,Tours Net,Tours,Pascal Brisset
|
||
1 10 21 Net 322,Lille Net,Halluin,Philippe Galle
|
||
no report Net 322,MassNet Central,Marlborough MA,Kevin Port
|
||
0 1 1 Net 323,Avignon Net,Avignon,Jacques Martin
|
||
no report Net 323,Rhode Island,Providence RI,Ray Vaughan
|
||
6 0 20 Net 324,MassNet NE,Danvers MA,Bob DeAlmeida
|
||
4 0 7 Net 325,Freedom of Choice,Vermont,James Pallack
|
||
no report Net 331,NorthernC,Italy,Alberto Morosi
|
||
no report Net 332,Italy88 Telnet,Italy,Claudio Boarino
|
||
no report Net 333,Fri-Ve-Net,Italy,Adolfo Melilli
|
||
no report Net 334,North-West Italy net,Italy,Franco Carcill
|
||
no report Net 335,Italia Centro Sud,Italy,Giorgio Rutiglian
|
||
5 0 5 Net 340,Canada West Net,Victoria BC,Mike Davey
|
||
7 0 10 Net 341,CASTILLA CENTRO,Spain,Enrique Lopez
|
||
14 2 17 Net 342,Northern Alberta,Edmonton Alberta,Tom Hal
|
||
8 0 Net 343,Catalunya Net,Spain,Jaime Roca
|
||
0 14 33 Net 343,Lesser Seattle Opera,Washington,LeRoy DeV
|
||
5 1 10 Net 344,NW Washington State,Washington,Dan Hartma
|
||
5 0 Net 345,ANDALUCIA,Spain,Peter Kjoege
|
||
3 0 10 Net 345,Pacific Region Fido,Honolulu HI,Ron Skate
|
||
3 0 Net 346,Levante Net,Spain,Javier Cueto
|
||
0 0 8 Net 346,WA Inland Empire,Spokane WA,Susan & Rober
|
||
4 0 7 Net 347,CNW NET The Last Frontier ,Kenneick WA,Ga
|
||
0 0 31 Net 348,Manitoba Net,Winnipeg MB,Chris Davis
|
||
0 0 1 Net 349,SoNet,Southern Oregon,Jonathan Talon
|
||
5 1 7 Net 350,Olympic Gateway,Grapeview WA,Ralph Sims
|
||
2 3 10 Net 351,North Island Coord,Nanaimo BC,Helen Marti
|
||
0 0 4 Net 352,Olympia Net Lacey WA,Sue Coleman
|
||
4 0 Net 360,Augusta Net,North Augusta SC,Ed Meloan
|
||
FidoNews 7-01 Page 18 1 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
0 0 Net 361,Central Mississippi,Vicksburg MS,Vic Parr
|
||
0 0 Net 362,Chatta-NET METRO,Chattanooga TN,Shawn Sto
|
||
14 3 Net 363,ODIN-NC,Orlando FL,John Ervin
|
||
0 0 Net 365,North Central Fla Net,Ocala FL,Eric Carr
|
||
0 0 Net 366,NW Florida (HST),Ft. Walton Beach FL,Stev
|
||
0 0 Net 367,Puerto Rico Net,San Juan PR,Juan Davila
|
||
0 0 Net 369,Treasure Coast Net,Fort Lauderdale FL,W.C
|
||
0 0 Net 370,NE Georgia Network,Athens GA,Tracy Graves
|
||
9 0 Net 371,SW Florida Coast Net,Cape Coral FL,Steve
|
||
14 0 Net 372,Charleston Net,Charleston SC,Mike Ratledg
|
||
0 0 Net 373,Rocket City Net,Huntsville AL,John Emmert
|
||
0 0 Net 374,Space Coast Net,Titusville FL,Jerry Russe
|
||
3 0 Net 375,Central Alabama Net,Montgomery AL,Tom Jon
|
||
0 0 Net 376,Cola Net,Columbia SC,Shay Walters
|
||
0 0 Net 377,Tampa Bay Net,Tampa Fl,Brian Hart
|
||
10 0 Net 379,MetroLina Net,Charlotte NC,Cary Howell
|
||
8 0 17 Net 380,S'port/Bossier City,Shreveport La,Paul Br
|
||
no report Net 381,West Texas Net,El Paso TX,Rick Petersen
|
||
no report Net 382,Capitol City,Lake Travis TX,Michael Maste
|
||
1 4 6 Net 383,San Angelo Net,San Angelo TX,Dori Peterso
|
||
9 0 9 Net 384,South Louisiana,Houma LA,Raymond Barnes
|
||
no report Net 385,SW OklaNet,Lawton OK,John Roberts
|
||
3 1 4 Net 386,Galveston County Net,Texas City TX,Calvin
|
||
18 0 22 Net 387,San Antonio Net,San Antonio TX,Dieter Bel
|
||
no report Net 388,HOT NET Waco,Waco TX,Bob Brown
|
||
6 1 11 Net 389,East Arkansas Net,Jonesboro AR,Kevin Watk
|
||
no report Net 390,Southeast Louisiana Net,Slidell LA,Walt F
|
||
no report Net 391,NoWe ARk Net,Fayetteville AR,Bob Underdow
|
||
no report Net 392,Big Country Net,Abilene Tx,Cliff Capers
|
||
no report Net 393,TX TriAngle,Denton TX,Van Holland
|
||
4 0 4 Net 394,Hammond Area Sysop Assoc,Hammond LA,Ray W
|
||
3 0 3 Net 395,Killeen Area,Killeen TX,Marc Wolf
|
||
12 4 16 Net 396,New Orleans Area,New Orleans LA,John Souv
|
||
no report Net 397,Tip-O-Tex/Valley Net,Edinburg TX,Michael
|
||
4 0 14 Net 398,East Tex Net,Longview TX,David Miller
|
||
no report Net 402,HollyNet (02),Jerusalem Israel,Uriel Sega
|
||
no report Net 403,Tel Aviv (03),Tel Aviv Israel,Chaim Neuma
|
||
no report Net 405,Network 052,Kfar-Saba Israel,Alon Gingold
|
||
no report Net 480,Poland,PL,Jan Stozek
|
||
no report Net 481,Botswana Net,Gaborone Botswana,John Case
|
||
no report Net 491,Transvaal Net,Johannesburg RSA,Dave Pedle
|
||
no report Net 492,Peninsula Net,Cape Town RSA,Peter Sheldon
|
||
no report Net 494,Algoa Net,Port Elizabeth RSA,Bryan Haefel
|
||
19 0 77 Net 500,HCC net,Ede,Henk Wevers
|
||
no report Net 501,First Net,Malmoe Sweden,Mats Knuts
|
||
no report Net 502,Norway,Oslo Norway,Ola Garstad
|
||
16 2 51 Net 504,Finland 1st Net,Espoo Finland,Hannu Stran
|
||
no report Net 505,DK,Denmark,Per Holm
|
||
10 14 43 Net 507,KRAUT'S INN MAIL-ONLY,FRG (Germany),Diete
|
||
no report Net 508,Netherland1,Apeldoorn Holland,Ignaat Simo
|
||
1 0 4 Net 509,Tech Net,West Germany FRG,Michael Juergen
|
||
FidoNews 7-01 Page 19 1 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
3 1 54 Net 512,PCC Net,Venray Holland,Joop Mellaart
|
||
6 1 7 Net 513,HCC(B)-BELGIUM,Wijnegem Belgium,David Gev
|
||
3 2 27 Net 515,Midnight Sun,Espoo Finland,Werner Cappel
|
||
no report Net 600,Singapore Area,SINGAPORE,Wing Lee
|
||
no report Net 608,Thailand Net,Thailand,Phoom Sanguanhong
|
||
no report Net 609,Malaysia Area,MALAYSIA,Jon Hiew
|
||
no report Net 610,Indonesia Net,Jakarta INDONESIA,James Fil
|
||
no report Net 620,Canberra Net,Canberra Australia,Scott Fur
|
||
no report Net 632,Melbourne Central Net,Melbourne Victoria
|
||
9 0 13 Net 633,Network 3:633,Melbourne Victoria Australi
|
||
2 1 4 Net 634,Southern & Western Melbourne Net,Melbourn
|
||
no report Net 635,Western & Northern Melbourne Net,Melbourn
|
||
no report Net 636,FrontDoor Australia,Frankston Nth Vic Aus
|
||
8 3 40 Net 640,QLD NET,Cairns Qld AUSTRALIA,Ray Chalmers
|
||
no report Net 670,Tasmania,Tasmania Australia,Alan Hughes
|
||
no report Net 680,STH AUST NET,FLINDERS PARK SOUTH AUSTRALI
|
||
no report Net 681,Southern Central Net,Inglewood Sth Austra
|
||
8 3 19 Net 690,The Golden State,Perth WA,Andrew Milner
|
||
12 0 52 Net 700,Hong Kong Net,Hong Kong,Louie Chan
|
||
5 4 31 Net 711,Coastal Opus,Springfield NSW,Kevin Mann
|
||
7 13 34 Net 712,SYDNEY NET,NSW AUSTRALIA,Colin Lean
|
||
8 1 13 Net 713,Sydney West,Penrith Australia,Ben Sharif
|
||
no report Net 714,WARRINGAH,Sydney NSW Australia,Graeme Nic
|
||
no report Net 720,TAIPEI Net,Taipei TAIWAN,Honlin Lue
|
||
no report Net 721,TAINAN Net,Kaohsiung TAIWAN,Shin-Huei Duh
|
||
no report Net 722,Mid TAIWAN Net,Changhua TAIWAN,Stronger S
|
||
no report Net 723,North TAIWAN NET,ChungLi TAIWAN,LeeAn
|
||
no report Net 724,Hsin Chu Net,HsinChu TAIWAN,Shean Yang Tz
|
||
no report Net 725,Taichung Net,Taichung TAIWAN,Chaur-Shyam
|
||
0 1 2 Net 770,Christchurch NET,CHCH NEW ZEALAND,Tony Ha
|
||
0 0 3 Net 771,Wellington NET,WGTN NEW ZEALAND,Jeremy Sc
|
||
7 3 11 Net 772,Auckland NET,AUCK NEW ZEALAND,Terry Bowde
|
||
0 10 12 Net 1200,TangoNET,Buenos Aires RA,Gustavo Zacaria
|
||
0 3 3 Net 1201,Red Litoral,Litoral RA,Gonzalo Borracer
|
||
2 0 Net 3600,The Chain Gang,Lake City Fl,Joe Vinci
|
||
0 0 Net 3601,North Florida Net,Gainesville FL,Robert
|
||
0 0 Net 3602,BHAMnet,Birmingham AL,Howard Duck
|
||
0 0 Net 3603,PinellasNET,St Petersburg FL,Bill Staab
|
||
0 0 Net 3604,MS Gulf Coast Net,Gulfport MS,Rick Maddo
|
||
0 0 Net 3605,Tally-Net,Tallahassee FL,Troy Kaser
|
||
0 0 Net 3607,North Alabama Net,Decatur AL,Jeff Fuller
|
||
2 0 Net 3608,Panama City Net,Panama City FL,James You
|
||
0 0 Net 3609,Gator Net,Cloud Lake FL,Clay Vagnini
|
||
3 0 Net 3610,Palm Bay Net,Palm Bay FL,Gary Blydenburg
|
||
2 0 Net 3611,Mid Ga Net,Macon GA,Jerry Toler
|
||
0 0 Net 3612,Pensacola Net (HST),Pensacola FL,John Br
|
||
0 0 Net 3613,West Central Ga Net,Columbus GA,Roger Ha
|
||
5 1 12 Region 10,Calif Nevada,Tustin CA,David Garrett
|
||
2 1 8 Region 11,Central,IL IN KY MI OH WI,Pat Mulcahy
|
||
0 0 3 Region 12,EASTERN CANADA,ON PQ PEI NS NB NF,Tom K
|
||
0 1 2 Region 13,Mid Atlantic,DE DC MD NJ NY PA VA WV,Ge
|
||
FidoNews 7-01 Page 20 1 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
3 0 13 Region 14,Mid West,IA.KS.MN.MO.NE.ND.SD,Tim Pears
|
||
2 0 12 Region 15,Mountain,AZ CO NM UT WY,Marv Carson
|
||
0 1 2 Region 16,New England,CT ME MA NH RI VT,Pete Whit
|
||
0 1 6 Region 17,North West,AK ALB BC HI ID MAN MT OR SS
|
||
3 1 15 Region 18,SouthEast/Caribbean,AL FL GA MS NC SC T
|
||
3 2 25 Region 19,TexArkOkLa,AR.LA.OK.TX,Tony Davis
|
||
0 0 2 Region 20,Sweden,S,Mats Knuts
|
||
no report 0 Region 21,Norway,N,Ola Garstad
|
||
0 0 4 Region 22,Finland,SF,Matti Lattu
|
||
0 0 1 Region 23,Denmark,DK,Per Holm
|
||
0 0 Region 24,West Germany,FRG,Michael Juergens
|
||
0 0 Region 25,British Isles,UK,Pete Franchi
|
||
0 0 1 Region 28,Holland,Oud-Beijerland,Hanno van.der.Ma
|
||
1 0 1 Region 29,Belgium,B,Staf Weyts
|
||
no report Region 30,Switzerland,CH,Clement Studer
|
||
1 0 3 Region 31,Austria,A,Werner Illsinger
|
||
no report Region 32,France,F,Pascal Brisset
|
||
no report Region 33,Italy,I,Giorgio Rutigliano
|
||
5 0 8 Region 34,Coordinador,SPAIN,Raymond Richmond
|
||
no report Region 40,Israel,IL,Ido Ophir
|
||
0 0 1 Region 48,BOTSWANA,Gaborone Botswana,John Case
|
||
2 2 4 Region 48,Poland,PL,Jan Stozek
|
||
18 1 19 Region 49,South Africa,RSA,Dave Pedler
|
||
no report Region 50,AUSTRALIA,MELBOURNE VIC AUSTRALIA,Simon
|
||
no report Region 51,ASEAN Region SINGAPORE,Wing Lee
|
||
no report Region 52,INDONESIA NET,Jakarta Indonesia,Jim Fil
|
||
0 0 1 Region 53,HONG KONG,Kowloon HK,Cordy Chan
|
||
0 0 1 Region 54,WESTERN PACIFIC OPUS,Cairns Qld AUSTRAL
|
||
no report Region 55,The Million Sq Mile Region Perth Wester
|
||
no report Region 56,TAIWAN NET,Taipei TAIWAN,Honlin Lue
|
||
no report Region 57,NEW ZEALAND,Christchurch NZ,Tony Hall
|
||
no report Region 60,Republica Argentina,Rosario SF/RA,Luis
|
||
0 0 3 Region 61,Red Venezolana,Caracas VZ,John Griffing
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
FidoNews 7-01 Page 21 1 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
WANTED
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
|
||
Justin Norman
|
||
Norm's Hideaway
|
||
Sherwood, Oregon
|
||
1:105/205
|
||
|
||
|
||
W A N T E D
|
||
|
||
The Senior Advanced Placement History class at Sherwood High
|
||
School is putting together a book about the Korean War which will
|
||
include tales of veterans. We are looking for any vets who would
|
||
be willing to set a side a small part of time for an interview,
|
||
we will work to your schedule and pay all costs involved. This
|
||
project promises to be one of the best in many years and your
|
||
story would be of incredible help to our book. Please consider
|
||
our offer and let us know if you would like to help.
|
||
|
||
Please contact Justin Norman at one of the following locations:
|
||
|
||
Sherwood High School
|
||
503/625-8110
|
||
|
||
Post Office Box 41
|
||
Sherwood, Oregon 97140
|
||
503/692-5976 voice, message
|
||
503/692-9660 voice
|
||
|
||
Norm's Hideaway
|
||
FidoNet 1:105/205
|
||
503/692-0725
|
||
24 hours, 300/1200/2400 baud, #CM
|
||
|
||
Please contact us before January 3, 1990. You time and effort is
|
||
much appreciated. Call collect at 503/692-9660 if you need to.
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
FidoNews 7-01 Page 22 1 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
Wanted: Users and sysops to participate in a skydiving echo.
|
||
This echo might also include slope-soaring, para-sailing, and
|
||
hang-gliding in order to obtain a large enough group of
|
||
participants. Please send netmail to Dave Appel @ 1:231/30.
|
||
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
FidoNews 7-01 Page 23 1 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
LATEST VERSIONS
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
|
||
Latest Software Versions
|
||
|
||
MS-DOS Systems
|
||
--------------
|
||
|
||
Bulletin Board Software
|
||
Name Version Name Version Name Version
|
||
|
||
Fido 12q+ Phoenix 1.3 TBBS 2.1
|
||
Lynx 1.30 QuickBBS 2.61* TComm/TCommNet 3.4
|
||
Kitten 2.16 RBBS 17.2B TPBoard 6.0
|
||
Opus 1.03b+ RBBSmail 17.2 Wildcat! 2.10*
|
||
|
||
|
||
Network Node List Other
|
||
Mailers Version Utilities Version Utilities Version
|
||
|
||
BinkleyTerm 2.30 EditNL 4.00 ARC 6.02
|
||
D'Bridge 1.30* MakeNL 2.20 ARCA06 2.20*
|
||
Dutchie 2.90C ParseList 1.30 ARCmail 2.0
|
||
FrontDoor 1.99b* Prune 1.40 ConfMail 4.00
|
||
PRENM 1.47 SysNL 3.01* EMM 2.02
|
||
SEAdog 4.51b XlatList 2.90 Gmail 2.01
|
||
XlaxDiff 2.32 GROUP 2.16
|
||
XlaxNode 2.32 GUS 1.30*
|
||
LHARC 1.13
|
||
MSG 4.0
|
||
MSGED 1.99
|
||
PK[UN]ZIP 1.02*
|
||
QM 1.0
|
||
QSORT 4.03
|
||
StarLink 1.01
|
||
TCOMMail 2.2
|
||
TMail 1.12
|
||
TPBNetEd 3.2
|
||
UFGATE 1.03
|
||
XRS 3.10
|
||
ZmailQ 1.10*
|
||
|
||
Macintosh
|
||
---------
|
||
|
||
Bulletin Board Software Network Mailers Other Utilities
|
||
|
||
Name Version Name Version Name Version
|
||
|
||
Red Ryder Host v2.1b3 Macpoint 0.91* MacArc 0.04
|
||
Mansion 7.12 Tabby 2.1 ArcMac 1.3
|
||
WWIV (Mac) 3.0 StuffIt 1.51
|
||
FidoNews 7-01 Page 24 1 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
TImport 1.331
|
||
TExport 1.32
|
||
Timestamp 1.6
|
||
Tset 1.3
|
||
Timestart 1.1
|
||
Tally 1.1
|
||
Mehitabel 1.2
|
||
Archie 1.60
|
||
Jennifer 0.25b2g
|
||
Numberizer 1.5c
|
||
MessageEdit 1.0
|
||
Mantissa 1.0
|
||
PreStamp 2.01
|
||
R.PreStamp 2.01
|
||
Saphire 2.1t
|
||
Epistle II 1.01
|
||
Import 2.52
|
||
Export 2.54
|
||
Sundial 2.1
|
||
AreaFix 1.1
|
||
Probe 0.052
|
||
Terminator 1.1
|
||
TMM 4.0b
|
||
UNZIP 1.01*
|
||
Amiga
|
||
-----
|
||
|
||
Bulletin Board Software Network Mailers Other Utilities
|
||
|
||
Name Version Name Version Name Version
|
||
|
||
Paragon 2.00+* BinkleyTerm 1.00 AmigArc 0.23
|
||
TrapDoor 1.11 booz 1.01
|
||
WelMat 0.35* ConfMail 1.10
|
||
ChameleonEdit 0.10
|
||
Lharc 1.00*
|
||
ParseLst 1.30
|
||
PkAX 1.00
|
||
RMB 1.30
|
||
UNzip 0.86
|
||
Zoo 2.00
|
||
|
||
|
||
Atari ST
|
||
--------
|
||
|
||
Bulletin Board Software Network Mailer Other Utilities
|
||
|
||
Name Version Name Version Name Version
|
||
|
||
FIDOdoor/ST 1.5c* BinkleyTerm 1.03g3 ConfMail 1.00
|
||
Pandora BBS 2.41c The BOX 1.20 ParseList 1.30
|
||
QuickBBS/ST 0.40 ARC 6.02*
|
||
GS Point 0.61 LHARC 0.51
|
||
FidoNews 7-01 Page 25 1 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
PKUNZIP 1.10
|
||
MSGED 1.96S
|
||
SRENUM 6.2
|
||
Trenum 0.10
|
||
OMMM 1.40
|
||
|
||
|
||
+ Netmail capable (does not require additional mailer software)
|
||
* Recently changed
|
||
|
||
Utility authors: Please help keep this list up to date by
|
||
reporting new versions to 1:1/1. It is not our intent to list
|
||
all utilities here, only those which verge on necessity.
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
FidoNews 7-01 Page 26 1 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
NOTICES
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
|
||
Mario Diaz,M.D.
|
||
135/8
|
||
|
||
New Anesthesia Echo
|
||
|
||
A new echomail conference for the discussion of Anesthesia
|
||
related subjects has been created. The purpose of this echo
|
||
is to discuss different aspects of Anesthesiology, not only
|
||
between Anesthesia personnel, but also to answer any questions
|
||
and clear up any doubts about anesthesia to anyone in general.
|
||
|
||
Most people that are going to have surgery openly state that
|
||
they are not afraid of the surgery, but they are terrified of
|
||
the Anesthesia. Maybe this echo will help to allay some of
|
||
these fears. The echo is currently on the backbone for general
|
||
distribution. For any further information regarding this echo
|
||
please contact Mario Diaz, M.D.,moderator, at 135/8.
|
||
|
||
Area Tag: ANESTHESIA
|
||
Area Name: Anesthesiology Discussion Forum
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
The Interrupt Stack
|
||
|
||
|
||
1 Feb 1990
|
||
Deadline for IFNA Policy and Bylaws election
|
||
|
||
5 Jun 1990
|
||
David Dodell's 33rd Birthday
|
||
|
||
5 Oct 1990
|
||
21st Anniversary of "Monty Python's Flying Circus"
|
||
|
||
|
||
If you have something which you would like to see on this
|
||
calendar, please send a message to FidoNet node 1:1/1.
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 7-01 Page 27 1 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
OFFICERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL FIDONET ASSOCIATION
|
||
|
||
Thom Henderson 1:107/528 Chairman of the Board
|
||
Les Kooyman 1:204/501 President
|
||
Fabian Gordon 1:107/323 Vice President
|
||
Bill Bolton 3:3/0 Vice President-Technical Coordinator
|
||
Kris Veitch 1:147/30 Secretary
|
||
Kris Veitch 1:147/30 Treasurer
|
||
|
||
|
||
IFNA COMMITTEE AND BOARD CHAIRS
|
||
|
||
Administration and Finance *
|
||
By-laws and Rules John Roberts 1:385/49
|
||
Executive Committee (Pres) Les Kooyman 1:204/501
|
||
International Affairs *
|
||
Membership Services Jim Vaughan 1:226/300
|
||
Nominations and Elections Steve Bonine 1:1/0
|
||
Public Affairs David Drexler 1:147/30.20
|
||
Publications Irene Henderson 1:107/9
|
||
Technical Standards Rick Moore 1:115/333
|
||
Ethics *
|
||
Security and Privacy *
|
||
Grievances *
|
||
|
||
* Position in abeyance pending reorganization
|
||
|
||
|
||
IFNA BOARD OF DIRECTORS
|
||
|
||
DIVISION AT-LARGE
|
||
10 Courtney Harris 1:102/732 Don Daniels 1:107/210
|
||
11 John Rafuse 1:12/900 Phil Buonomo 1:107/583
|
||
12 Bill Bolton 3:711/403 Mark Hawthorne 1:107/238
|
||
13 Fabian Gordon 1:107/323 Tom Jennings 1:125/111
|
||
14 Ken Kaplan 1:100/22 Irene Henderson 1:107/509
|
||
15 Kevin McNeil 1:128/45 Steve Jordan 1:206/2871
|
||
16 Ivan Schaffel 1:141/390 Robert Rudolph 1:261/628
|
||
17 Kathi Crockett 1:134/30 Dave Melnik 1:107/233
|
||
18 Andrew Adler 1:135/47 Jim Hruby 1:107/536
|
||
19 Kris Veitch 1:147/30 Burt Juda 1:107/528
|
||
2 Henk Wevers 2:500/1 Karl Schinke 1:107/516
|
||
3 Matt Whelan 3:54/99 John Roberts 1:147/14
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
FidoNews 7-01 Page 28 1 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
__
|
||
The World's First / \
|
||
BBS Network /|oo \
|
||
* FidoNet * (_| /_)
|
||
_`@/_ \ _
|
||
| | \ \\
|
||
| (*) | \ ))
|
||
______ |__U__| / \//
|
||
/ Fido \ _//|| _\ /
|
||
(________) (_/(_|(____/ (tm)
|
||
|
||
Membership for the International FidoNet Association
|
||
|
||
Membership in IFNA is open to any individual or organization that
|
||
pays a specified annual membership fee. IFNA serves the
|
||
international FidoNet-compatible electronic mail community to
|
||
increase worldwide communications.
|
||
|
||
Member Name _______________________________ Date _______________
|
||
Address _________________________________________________________
|
||
City ____________________________________________________________
|
||
State ________________________________ Zip _____________________
|
||
Country _________________________________________________________
|
||
Home Phone (Voice) ______________________________________________
|
||
Work Phone (Voice) ______________________________________________
|
||
|
||
Zone:Net/Node Number ____________________________________________
|
||
BBS Name ________________________________________________________
|
||
BBS Phone Number ________________________________________________
|
||
Baud Rates Supported ____________________________________________
|
||
Board Restrictions ______________________________________________
|
||
|
||
Your Special Interests __________________________________________
|
||
_________________________________________________________________
|
||
_________________________________________________________________
|
||
In what areas would you be willing to help in FidoNet? __________
|
||
_________________________________________________________________
|
||
_________________________________________________________________
|
||
Send this membership form and a check or money order for $25 in
|
||
US Funds to:
|
||
International FidoNet Association
|
||
PO Box 41143
|
||
St Louis, Missouri 63141
|
||
USA
|
||
|
||
Thank you for your membership! Your participation will help to
|
||
insure the future of FidoNet.
|
||
|
||
Please NOTE that IFNA is a general not-for-profit organization
|
||
and Articles of Association and By-Laws were adopted by the
|
||
membership in January 1987. The second elected Board of Directors
|
||
was filled in August 1988. The IFNA Echomail Conference has been
|
||
established on FidoNet to assist the Board. We welcome your
|
||
input to this Conference.
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 7-01 Page 29 1 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|